site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34531 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay. First, they wouldn't patent such a pill, because they know it'd be the top story on FOX for the next week and not sell. Second, they wouldn't be able to sell or distribute the pill - no FDA approval because it doesn't treat any diseases. Nor would any normal democrats or leftists (leftist generally refers to 'socialist / communist / anarchist', not 'normal democrats), give it to their kid, even the particularly gay-accepting ones, they do not think gay is better than straight. The only possible exception I can see here is maybe some gay parents would want their adopted children to be gay to for the shared experiences, but I don't think that translates to a meaningful number of uses of the pill. It would lead to interesting science on how 'being gay' works, though.

So this is just conservative fear porn? It's not any more interesting than a post about 'what would conservatives do if science discovered 20% of people are trans, and not letting them transition makes them very sad??'.

You could have made that argument about things that actually happened as well though. It needs to get a foot in the door somehow first, unassited, doesnt need to be very big or mainstream. Then I think liberals would support it. Not to increase minorities, or because they believe being gay is better, but in the same sort of way they do with trans now.

The problem is it's designed to be a conservative rage fantasy - "Pfizer turning our kids gay!!". And the 'only to 13yos' aspect is going to put off most libs as well.

A better thought experiment would be 'a reversible pill for any age that turns you gay'. That, I could see spreading over a long period of time.

It's not any more interesting than a post about 'what would conservatives do if science discovered 20% of people are trans, and not letting them transition makes them very sad??'.

(1) Right now, the estimates are something around 1% for trans people. Hell knows if that's accurate or not, but by comparison, around 11% of Americans are baseball fans. If baseball fans got the same accommodations as trans people do, imagine that. So if 20% of people were trans, I'd be a lot more inclined to take it as a real need

(2) Boo-hoo on "very sad". A lot of things make a lot of people very sad, but we have to suck it up and get on with life. Agree that trans dysphoria is a mental illness that needs treatment, that hormones and in the most extreme cases surgery are necessary medical treatments, and okay, I'll go along with that. But right now we have "it's totally perfectly normal, you bigot; it's not a mental illness, even if there are claims about dysphoria and suicide (and a fuck-ton of sex offenders coming out as trans, imagine that) and co-morbidities of anxiety, depression, ADHD, PTSD and everything else the online snowflakes can tick off the bingo card; it's not a fetish ditto; even if we demand hormones and puberty blockers and surgery and legal enforcement of 'you have to pretend this visibly male person in a dress and bad wig is a woman, to the extent of letting him into a rape shelter', IT'S ALL NORMAL JUST LIKE BEING CIS".

So I think you can gauge my opinion here. Susie who was John who just wants to dress like a woman and get on with their life - great, no problem. Astrella Diamanté Vendetta who looks like a bodybuilder in tight leggings and clown makeup and insists they are six different kinds of neo-pronouns and orientations and disabilities can go right out the door and keep on going.

Okay. First, they wouldn't patent such a pill, because they know it'd be the top story on FOX for the next week and not sell. Second, they wouldn't be able to sell or distribute the pill - no FDA approval because it doesn't treat any diseases. Nor would any normal democrats or leftists (leftist generally refers to 'socialist / communist / anarchist', not 'normal democrats), give it to their kid, even the particularly gay-accepting ones, they do not think gay is better than straight.

Puberty blockers are basically that pill, but for trans. The only thing you might be right about is the FDA approval process, which in this case was easily circumvented by getting it approved for completely different cases, but prescribing them for dysphoria. Otherwise you're wrong on all counts.

Puberty blockers have other uses, so the FDA's approval thereof says nothing about how they would treat the hypothetical gay pill. Here is Wikipedia's take:

Delaying or temporarily suspending puberty is a medical treatment for children whose puberty started abnormally early (precocious puberty).[21] Puberty blockers have been used on-label since the 1980s to treat precocious puberty in children,[22] and were approved for use in treating precocious puberty in children by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993.[23] Puberty blockers are also commonly used for children with idiopathic short stature, for whom these medications can be used to promote development of long bones and increase adult height.[21] In adults, the same drugs have a range of different medical uses, including the treatment of endometriosis, breast and prostate cancer, and polycystic ovary syndrome.[24]

Uh... yes, that's what I said.

Puberty blockers were approved for blocking puberty, in order to treat recognized medical problems. Hence, they are not evidence to refute the argument that there will be "no FDA approval because it doesn't treat any diseases." That was OP's premise, and in fact OP explicitly referenced treatments for trans kids: " this would be slightly different in that there is no allegation of a pre-existing condition. This pill doesn't alleviate the suffering of someone whose body doesn't match their brain,"

Puberty blockers were approved for blocking puberty,

They have been approved for precocious puberty. That's not an on-label use for treating gender dysphoria in otherwise healthy children.

Hence, they are not evidence to refute the argument that there will be "no FDA approval because it doesn't treat any diseases."

Which is why I said "The only thing you might be right about is the FDA approval process".

Whether it is an on-label use is irrelevant when the question is whether it would be approved for any use.

He's saying a "gay pill" would not get approved because it doesn't treat any diseases. I said he might be right on that, but that process could be circumvented by approving it for something else, and then using it as a "gay pill". If you're disagreeing with anything I said, I really don't see what.

Puberty blockers are given to kids who, as a result of stuff they see on the internet, claim they are trans and would be very sad/suicidal if they went through same-gender puberty. This is a very different situation than giving the turns-you-gay-pill to random kids who haven't said anything on the topic. Not arguing puberty blockers are good, it's just entirely different.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats